Bug 1438881

Thanks for preparing the package. My review follows.

Issues:
=======
- I think it would be better for the names of the executables in /usr/bin to
  not include dash, similarly to the compat-guile18 and python3 packages
- The package should probably not include the /usr/bin/guile2{,-tools} symlinks
- Missing Provides: bundled(gnulib)
  See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:No_Bundled_Libraries#Requirement_if_you_bundle
- Package contains a libtool archive /usr/lib64/guile/2.2/extensions/guile-readline.la
  See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#StaticLibraries
- Package has obsolete/wrong scriptlets:
  %triggerin -- guile and %postrans should be removed
  %triggerin -- slib needs to be updated, or removed if slib doesn't work with guile2.2 yet
- Macro %define mver should be replaced with %global mver

===== MUST items =====

C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
     other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
     Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[-]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
     Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/share/guile/site(compat-
     guile18, guile), /usr/lib64/guile(guile), /usr/include/guile(guile-
     devel), /usr/share/guile(compat-guile18, guile)
     This looks ok.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Texinfo files are installed using install-info in %post and %preun if
     package has .info files.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
     names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
     Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
     one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
     license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
     license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
     that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
     beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
     work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
     provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
     %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

===== SHOULD items =====

Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
     file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise
     justified.
[!]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
     Some needs to be removed or updated.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
     translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
     architectures.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
     Note: some tests are disabled for being unreliable.
[-]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
     files.
[!]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
     Note: %define requiring justification: %define mver 2.2
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
     $RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro.
[x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct.
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.

===== EXTRA items =====

Generic:
[!]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros
     Note: Some obsoleted macros found, see the attachment.
     See: https://fedorahosted.org/FedoraReview/wiki/AutoTools
[-]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package
     is arched.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s).
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: guile22-2.2.0-2.fc27.x86_64.rpm
          guile22-devel-2.2.0-2.fc27.x86_64.rpm
          guile22-debuginfo-2.2.0-2.fc27.x86_64.rpm
          guile22-2.2.0-2.fc27.src.rpm
guile22.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) extensibility -> sensibility, extensible
guile22.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US extensibility -> sensibility, extensible
guile22.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib64/guile/2.2/ccache/scripts/scan-api.go
guile22.x86_64: E: shared-lib-without-dependency-information /usr/lib64/guile/2.2/ccache/scripts/scan-api.go
guile22.x86_64: E: missing-PT_GNU_STACK-section /usr/lib64/guile/2.2/ccache/scripts/scan-api.go

[Large number of warnings and errors for other .go files]...

guile22.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/.build-id
guile22.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/.build-id
guile22.x86_64: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/bin/guile2-tools guile-tools
guile22.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/guile/2.2/language/elisp/compile-tree-il.scm
guile22.x86_64: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/bin/guile2 guile
guile22.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary guile2-tools
guile22.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary guile2
guile22.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary guile-tools-2.2
guile22.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary guild-2.2
guile22.x86_64: W: dangerous-command-in-%trigger ln
guile22.x86_64: W: dangerous-command-in-%trigger rm
guile22.x86_64: W: dangerous-command-in-%trigger rm
guile22.x86_64: W: dangerous-command-in-%posttrans mv
guile22-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) extensibility -> sensibility, extensible
guile22-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US extensibility -> sensibility, extensible
guile22-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
guile22-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
guile22-devel.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary guile-snarf-2.2
guile22-devel.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary guile-config-2.2
guile22-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/guile22-2.2.0-2.fc27.x86_64/libguile/elf.h
guile22.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) extensibility -> sensibility, extensible
guile22.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US extensibility -> sensibility, extensible
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 603 errors, 322 warnings.

Rpmlint (debuginfo)
-------------------
Checking: guile22-debuginfo-2.2.0-2.fc27.x86_64.rpm
guile22-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/guile22-2.2.0-2.fc27.x86_64/libguile/elf.h
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings.

Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
Python detected LC_CTYPE=C: LC_ALL & LANG coerced to C.UTF-8 (set another locale or PYTHONCOERCECLOCALE=0 to disable this locale coercion behaviour).
sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory
guile22.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) extensibility -> sensibility, extensible
guile22.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US extensibility -> sensibility, extensible
guile22.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib64/guile/2.2/ccache/ice-9/and-let-star.go
guile22.x86_64: W: ldd-failed /usr/lib64/guile/2.2/ccache/ice-9/and-let-star.go
guile22.x86_64: E: shared-lib-without-dependency-information /usr/lib64/guile/2.2/ccache/ice-9/and-let-star.go
guile22.x86_64: E: missing-PT_GNU_STACK-section /usr/lib64/guile/2.2/ccache/ice-9/and-let-star.go

[Large number of warnings and errors for other .go files]...

guile22.x86_64: E: missing-call-to-chdir-with-chroot /usr/lib64/libguile-2.2.so.1.0.0
guile22.x86_64: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/bin/guile2 guile
guile22.x86_64: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/bin/guile2-tools guile-tools
guile22.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/.build-id
guile22.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/.build-id
guile22.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/guile/2.2/language/elisp/compile-tree-il.scm
guile22.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary guild-2.2
guile22.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary guile-tools-2.2
guile22.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary guile2
guile22.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary guile2-tools
guile22.x86_64: W: dangerous-command-in-%trigger ln
guile22.x86_64: W: dangerous-command-in-%trigger rm
guile22.x86_64: W: dangerous-command-in-%trigger rm
guile22.x86_64: W: dangerous-command-in-%posttrans mv
guile22-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) extensibility -> sensibility, extensible
guile22-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US extensibility -> sensibility, extensible
guile22-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
guile22-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
guile22-devel.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary guile-config-2.2
guile22-devel.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary guile-snarf-2.2
guile22-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/guile22-2.2.0-2.fc27.x86_64/libguile/elf.h
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 603 errors, 620 warnings.

Requires
--------
guile22 (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /bin/sh
    /sbin/install-info
    /sbin/ldconfig
    coreutils
    ld-linux-x86-64.so.2()(64bit)
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    libcrypt.so.1()(64bit)
    libffi.so.6()(64bit)
    libgc.so.1()(64bit)
    libgmp.so.10()(64bit)
    libguile-2.2.so.1()(64bit)
    libguile-2.2.so.1(GUILE_2.0)(64bit)
    libltdl.so.7()(64bit)
    libm.so.6()(64bit)
    libncurses.so.6()(64bit)
    libpthread.so.0()(64bit)
    libreadline.so.7()(64bit)
    libtinfo.so.6()(64bit)
    libunistring.so.2()(64bit)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)

guile22-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /bin/sh
    /usr/bin/pkg-config
    gc-devel
    gmp-devel
    guile22(x86-64)
    libguile-2.2.so.1()(64bit)
    pkgconfig

guile22-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

Provides
--------
guile22:
    guile22
    guile22(x86-64)
    libguile-2.2.so.1()(64bit)
    libguile-2.2.so.1(GUILE_2.0)(64bit)
    libtool(/usr/lib64/guile/2.2/extensions/guile-readline.la)

guile22-devel:
    guile22-devel
    guile22-devel(x86-64)
    pkgconfig(guile-2.2)

guile22-debuginfo:
    guile22-debuginfo
    guile22-debuginfo(x86-64)

AutoTools: Obsoleted m4s found
------------------------------
  AC_PROG_LIBTOOL found in: guile-2.2.0/configure.ac:105,
  guile-2.2.0/configure.ac:1693

Source checksums
----------------
ftp://ftp.gnu.org/pub/gnu/guile/guile-2.2.0.tar.xz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : c18198ff6e8b05c620dbdd49b816a2e63a2688af843b5cf8e965041f1adcb515
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : c18198ff6e8b05c620dbdd49b816a2e63a2688af843b5cf8e965041f1adcb515

As I understand this review, the new guile22 is supposed to be installed alongside the existing guile 2.0.x package. I think that there are some potential problems with the spec.

1) You seem to be removing the old info pages in the %preun script. I don't think that's going to work on updates, plus if need them for the old version, the info pages are not there on the system anymore.

2) You still ship the compat symlinks to guile and guile-tools, which will conflict with 2.0.x, will they not?

I created a very similar package some time ago [1], you can get the info pages install side by side and work after installation with some sed magic.

[1] https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/jsynacek/gnu-guile-2.1.x/build/486009/

Spec URL: https://jdulaney.fedorapeople.org/guile22.spec
SRPM URL: https://jdulaney.fedorapeople.org/guile22-2.2.0-4.fc26.src.rpm

Thanks for the update. Except some issues with the info files I think all good.

- %preun is needed to uninstall the info files correctly, https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Scriptlets#Texinfo
- the install-info commands should (un)install the info files in the package (guile22 and r5rs22)
- the info files need to be modified, see Jan's comment #2.

Spec URL: https://jdulaney.fedorapeople.org/guile22.spec
SRPM URL: https://jdulaney.fedorapeople.org/guile22-2.2.0-5.fc27.src.rpm

Looks good. Approved.

Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/guile22

Just a note that unless this package contains version 22 of guile, the naming guidelines indicate that "guile2.2" is the correct name:

"
[...] All other packages derived from it MUST include the base name suffixed by either:

* The package version, which SHOULD include the periods present in the original version. 
[...]
"

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Naming#Multiple_packages_with_the_same_base_name

The idea is to avoid the confusion between version 2.2 and version 22.

(In reply to Jason Tibbitts from comment #8)
> Just a note that unless this package contains version 22 of guile, the
> naming guidelines indicate that "guile2.2" is the correct name:
> 
> "
> [...] All other packages derived from it MUST include the base name suffixed
> by either:
> 
> * The package version, which SHOULD include the periods present in the
> original version. 
> [...]
>
> The idea is to avoid the confusion between version 2.2 and version 22.

Good point.

FWIW, I prefer guile22 to keep the naming consistent with compat-guile18. There are other packages not using dots and I think it's very unlikely we would have guile-2.2 and guile-22 packaged in Fedora at the same time.

guile22-2.2.1-1.fc26 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 26. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-5845191ead

guile22-2.2.1-1.fc25 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 25. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-ff7cfe0522

guile22-2.2.1-1.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-ff7cfe0522

guile22-2.2.1-1.fc26 has been pushed to the Fedora 26 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-5845191ead

guile22-2.2.1-1.fc26 has been pushed to the Fedora 26 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

I did an additional round of testing and it seems to be working fine. Thanks!

guile22-2.2.1-1.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.